PDA

View Full Version : Roddick: A Pusher?


theagassiman
04-11-2009, 08:53 PM
We all know the 6 player types:
1. Retriever (Gets everything back)
2. Counterpuncher (Smooth transition from offense to defence)
3. Agressive Baseliner (Big groundstroke(s) to dictate play)
4. Pusher/Junkballer (Not pretty strokes, relies on opponent's unforced errors)
5. All-Court Player (Either prefers the net, e.g: sampras
or the baseline, e.g: federer)
6. Serve and volleyer

But where does Roddick fit into?

Most experts say he is an agressive baseliner, and whilst that might have been true in 2003, his groundstrokes are becoming more and more average these days, certainly not strokes that he can dictate with.

Forget about all-court player and serve and volleyer, as he only goes to the net to shake hands or to get passed.

So what's left is retriever, counterpuncher and pusher.

Although Roddick is VERY fast, I don't think he retrieves that well, as his placement is well.. terrible.
The same thing can be said about counterpunching, as his shots like consistently good placement.

So we're left with... The Pusher!
Roddick a professional tennis player? A pusher?
Yet as ridiculous as this this sounds, the more it begins to make sense, at least to me.

You see, Roddick hasn't got good placement, if you think of him as an agressive baseliner at least.
However, if you notice what he does, when Roddick wins against a decent opponent, let's say Djokovic, it is usually because Djokovic is making a lot of errors.

So either everyone plays like crap against Roddick to lose (except for Federer, Nadal, Murray and sometimes Djokovic), or Roddick HITS TO THE PLACES where players make the errors.
And I think it is the latter, because everyone assumes Roddick hits rubbish approach approach shots 'cos he can't think of any other alternative, but this may because he WANTS his opponent to become arrogant and MAKE THE ERRORS, which is how he wins.

Anyway enough ranting for now.
What do you guys think?

LeftySpin
04-11-2009, 09:05 PM
I dunno I can see your reasoning becuase he doesn't full fit the other catagories. But I have to say he doesn't really fit pusher either. I don't know what he is. Before he use to blast balls fromt eh baseline but now its more for consistancy. I think he's more of a counter puncher. He may not be that consistant but he definatly has better strokes then a pusher. Also I have never heard of a pusher with a powerful serve. haha but thats just me. To end it all I see him in between coutner puncher and pusher.

theagassiman
04-11-2009, 09:07 PM
I dunno I can see your reasoning becuase he doesn't full fit the other catagories. But I have to say he doesn't really fit pusher either. I don't know what he is. Before he use to blast balls fromt eh baseline but now its more for consistancy. I think he's more of a counter puncher. He may not be that consistant but he definatly has better strokes then a pusher. Also I have never heard of a pusher with a powerful serve. haha but thats just me. To end it all I see him in between coutner puncher and pusher.

Hmmmmm..
Yeah, he is just a pusher with a powerful serve I think.
A PRO pusher though, not the pushers we face.

Like Brad Gilbert, except with a bigger serve.

southpaw101
04-11-2009, 09:19 PM
pusher on the backhand side, dictates on the forehand and serve

illkhiboy
04-11-2009, 09:22 PM
When I was watching Indian Wells, I noticed Roddick play a range of styles. Against Kiefer, he was pretty much pushing the whole match. A smarter player would have taken advantage of that. Kiefer clearly had the tools to beat him from the back court but often went for too much too soon. Watching that much I thought, 'wow Roddick sucks. Ferrer will eat him.'

However, when he played Ferrer he hit his backhand a bit better. He was hitting the down the line shot especially well and played much more like a counter puncher. His forehand which he had been merely pushing with in the previous match was more penetrating as well. I still thought Ferrer was to blame. I felt he didn't take advantage of Roddick's forehand enough.

It's conventional wisdom to keep to Andy's backhand but he hits that shot flatter. His forehand has a lot more spin and tends to sit up more. Especially the down the line forehand that he hits to change direction. Anyway, Roddick served, sliced, counter-punched and volleyed his way to success in that match as well.

And then came the Djokovic match. I was convinced Djokovic would take him out. Now we all know how horrible Novak played that game. But Roddick had a fair share in contributing to the outcome. His forehand was bigger, his backhand was sharp and his game seemed to have come a long way since the Kiefer match. He suddenly looked like a versatile player who had a few weapons at his disposal. He could hit through the court, keep the opponent off balance with his slices, rush the net, serve bombs. He certainly wasn't playing like a pusher.

theagassiman
04-11-2009, 09:31 PM
When I was watching Indian Wells, I noticed Roddick play a range of styles. Against Kiefer, he was pretty much pushing the whole match. A smarter player would have taken advantage of that. Kiefer clearly had the tools to beat him from the back court but often went for too much too soon. Watching that much I thought, 'wow Roddick sucks. Ferrer will eat him.'

However, when he played Ferrer he hit his backhand a bit better. He was hitting the down the line shot especially well and played much more like a counter puncher. His forehand which he had been merely pushing with in the previous match was more penetrating as well. I still thought Ferrer was to blame. I felt he didn't take advantage of Roddick's forehand enough.

It's conventional wisdom to keep to Andy's backhand but he hits that shot flatter. His forehand has a lot more spin and tends to sit up more. Especially the down the line forehand that he hits to change direction. Anyway, Roddick served, sliced, counter-punched and volleyed his way to success in that match as well.

And then came the Djokovic match. I was convinced Djokovic would take him out. Now we all know how horrible Novak played that game. But Roddick had a fair share in contributing to the outcome. His forehand was bigger, his backhand was sharp and his game seemed to have come a long way since the Kiefer match. He suddenly looked like a versatile player who had a few weapons at his disposal. He could hit through the court, keep the opponent off balance with his slices, rush the net, serve bombs. He certainly wasn't playing like a pusher.

Hmmmmm...
Maybe an all-court pusher then?
LOL.

Toxicmilk
04-11-2009, 10:39 PM
Since when does someone really need to fit into exactly one category, sure some people can I guess. some more than others.

Ripster
04-11-2009, 11:27 PM
It's tough to categorize him. I kind of see him as a retriever in that he gets everything back but he also has a huge serve and he has the ability to occasionally attack with the forehand. I wouldn't call him a counter-puncher because by your definition that involves a smooth transition from offense to defense, and I rarely see this in his game.

If you take away the serve, he doesn't hit nearly enough winners to be considered an aggressive baseliner or have a solid enough net game to be an all-court player.

And as for the pusher category, I really don't think pusher's exist in the pro game.

theagassiman
04-12-2009, 12:04 AM
It's tough to categorize him. I kind of see him as a retriever in that he gets everything back but he also has a huge serve and he has the ability to occasionally attack with the forehand. I wouldn't call him a counter-puncher because by your definition that involves a smooth transition from offense to defense, and I rarely see this in his game.

If you take away the serve, he doesn't hit nearly enough winners to be considered an aggressive baseliner or have a solid enough net game to be an all-court player.

And as for the pusher category, I really don't think pusher's exist in the pro game.

They do.
Except they're not the pushers we play as an amatuers, the ones who just get everything back and nothing else.

The pushers on the pro circuit get everything back in the backcourt but have a good/average net game and usually one decent shot.

Some examples are:
. Brad Gilbert
. Ivo Karlovic (when he is pinned to the baseline)
. Andy Roddick

Not many pushers on the pro-circuit though, you're right.
But there are some.

thalivest
04-12-2009, 12:15 AM
His game is hard to define. It is a great serve mishmashed with a bit of alot of other things but nothing else that great, but enough combined with her serve to push him to alot of wins.

Nanshiki
04-12-2009, 12:23 AM
The current Roddick is Serve and Punch (and occasionally volley). Old Roddick is Serve and Baseline Bash, which worked pretty well...

I think he'd do well to find a reasonable medium.

illkhiboy
04-12-2009, 04:30 AM
They do.
Except they're not the pushers we play as an amatuers, the ones who just get everything back and nothing else.

The pushers on the pro circuit get everything back in the backcourt but have a good/average net game and usually one decent shot.

Some examples are:
. Brad Gilbert
. Ivo Karlovic (when he is pinned to the baseline)
. Andy Roddick

Not many pushers on the pro-circuit though, you're right.
But there are some.

Ivo really blasts that forehand, he is not a pusher. Roddick as I explained earlier can get into pushing contests and at one time became very prone to playing that sort of game (see the match against Kohlschrieber at the Aussie last year) but he is not really a 'pusher.'

prosealster
04-12-2009, 05:06 AM
yep he is pusher...very consistent but cant hurt any good mover from the back of the court :)

David_Is_Right
04-12-2009, 05:45 AM
So we're left with... The Pusher!

You have concluded that, because you don't think Roddick doesn't fits well into any of the 5 strict categories you defined, he must deductively fit into the 6th, which you also defined.

This is like me saying the following:

"I think there are four fundamental types of solid: rock, metal, wood and mud. I don't think this pool ball fits into the rock, wood or mud categories, but it is shiny, so it must be a metal!"

Is it not possible that tennis is not limited to those categories of player you defined? Or that there is a continuum which encompasses many of those, and perhaps other categories?

Forehand Forever
04-12-2009, 06:19 AM
Roddick has said before that he had been a pusher all his life before the tour and the coaches that changed him.

6rump
04-12-2009, 06:53 AM
I don't if he's a pusher or what, but i'm very dissapointed with his forehand now, his forehand only keep him for not making many unforced errors, but that is not Roddick signature forehand which is so penetrating and hard.... and the worst thing is he used that loopy forehand for an approach shot...OMG! i don't know what to say but it's very annoying watch him playing like that...!!!

Josherer
04-12-2009, 06:55 AM
He's not. End of story.

no djok
04-12-2009, 07:06 AM
I wish I could push the ball like Roddick

WHSTENNIS
04-12-2009, 07:16 AM
His strokes are really coming back though, roddick a pusher? please....

clayman2000
04-12-2009, 07:33 AM
Watch this.... and if you think Roddick is pushing.... your wrong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVjm2pdYw1Q

JeMar
04-12-2009, 07:46 AM
Roddick plays largely the part of a pusher when he plays anyone not in the top 5. His preferred way of playing is by pushing the ball unless he plays someone that can easily hit winners .

deltox
04-12-2009, 08:03 AM
Roddick as a pusher is one ive never heard any say. not even roddick haters. His inside out forehand, his flat forehand, his looping topspin forehand, none of these are pushing. now his backhand can be considered pushing alot of the time but not always there either.

other than his weak backhand push i cannot see where your coming up with this thought process.

Roddick is and will always be an agressive baseliner trying to become all court which he cant do but is still to this day trying to build..

JeMar
04-12-2009, 08:09 AM
Those shots may not be considered pushing, but he doesn't use them often enough for them to be considered his normal shots. Watch him play anyone outside of the top 5, and you'll see that Roddick is content to just get the ball deep and keep it in play and not really go for many winners off the ground.

Remember that we're speaking in relative terms, so a pro pusher still hits much more aggressively than that 3.5 at your club that no one likes to play.

deltox
04-12-2009, 08:17 AM
do you not take something off your game when you play someone you know you can easily beat?

i take alot of my game for consistancy and allow them to make UEs or the not so deep shot that i can attack.. attacking every shot will be you UEs coming out your skin.

JeMar
04-12-2009, 08:28 AM
Right.

This is why I said we're speaking in relative terms here. You could make the same argument for every player that could be considered a "pusher" in the top 50. A pusher in the professional tour is still a very attack-minded player, but there is something to be said about varying degrees.

A player like Simon usually does the same thing off the ground as Roddick, but we label him a pusher because he lacks the huge serve that sets Roddick apart. I'm arguing that Roddick, once the serve is over and done with, plays the role of a pusher in the rallies when he has a choice of style to play. Pushing off the ground is his comfort zone.

tsongafan
04-12-2009, 09:29 AM
Roddick is no where near a pusher. A pusher also means they
NEVER go for anything. This is obvioulsy not true. Roddick for sure doesn't push his serve in, and for sure doesnt push his forehand. Maybe his backhand is a little weaker but he still goes for things once in awhile. Also, Roddik's volleys are definitley not that bad, they are actually decently good. An example of a pusher would be a player like Santoro. So therefore, Roddick is NOT a pusher.

P_Agony
04-12-2009, 10:54 AM
Roddick is not a pusher. I agree he's not as agressive as he used to be, but pushers don't play like Roddick, hence he's not one. Don't mistake good defense play with being a pusher.

RoddickAce
04-12-2009, 10:58 AM
We all know the 6 player types:
1. Retriever (Gets everything back)
2. Counterpuncher (Smooth transition from offense to defence)
3. Agressive Baseliner (Big groundstroke(s) to dictate play)
4. Pusher/Junkballer (Not pretty strokes, relies on opponent's unforced errors)
5. All-Court Player (Either prefers the net, e.g: sampras
or the baseline, e.g: federer)
6. Serve and volleyer


Just a quick question, according to that list, are Federer and Nadal counterpunchers?:confused: Since they rely on their transition game and changing from offense to defense rather than dictating play all the time.

deltox
04-12-2009, 11:14 AM
Just a quick question, according to that list, are Federer and Nadal counterpunchers?:confused: Since they rely on their transition game and changing from offense to defense rather than dictating play all the time.

nadal yes, fed would be all court

Beasty54
04-12-2009, 12:04 PM
Ivo really blasts that forehand, he is not a pusher. Roddick as I explained earlier can get into pushing contests and at one time became very prone to playing that sort of game (see the match against Kohlschrieber at the Aussie last year) but he is not really a 'pusher.'

From this year watch the match with Stepanek in Memphis. Great match. Not alot of pushing.

Cyan
04-12-2009, 12:44 PM
Lol...............

JeMar
04-12-2009, 01:39 PM
I guess no one's really getting what I meant.

There are no pushers on the professional tour. Not Simon, not Santoro, not anybody.

There are, however, varying degrees of aggression. Roddick used to hit one of the biggest forehands in the game, and he used to go for it pretty often. As his game has evolved, he's begun to be less aggressive off the ground and has become one of the less aggressive players in the top 20 after the ball is served.

Even here we see he doesn't really play like the "pusher" that we're all familiar with, as he goes to net on a frequent basis.

There are no real pushers in the pro tour.

tenniko
04-12-2009, 02:47 PM
There are, however, varying degrees of aggression. Roddick used to hit one of the biggest forehands in the game, and he used to go for it pretty often. As his game has evolved, he's begun to be less aggressive off the ground and has become one of the less aggressive players in the top 20 after the ball is served.


I think he used to hit those forehands because it worked. However, we now see great defense from even the aggressive players and more solid defense, and Roddick's response resulted in his current forehand. It's not that Roddick is a pusher, but nowadays compared to other people with huge strokes (his serve is still a huge weapon), Roddick looks like a pusher.

Staiger
04-12-2009, 02:57 PM
If he is class as a pusher ....wow ! I am shocked , speechless you left me

Ripster
04-12-2009, 04:34 PM
They do.
Except they're not the pushers we play as an amatuers, the ones who just get everything back and nothing else.

The pushers on the pro circuit get everything back in the backcourt but have a good/average net game and usually one decent shot.

Some examples are:
. Brad Gilbert
. Ivo Karlovic (when he is pinned to the baseline)
. Andy Roddick

Not many pushers on the pro-circuit though, you're right.
But there are some.

By definition a pusher is a player whose goal is to hit the ball back over the net and into the court. That is all. You can't seriously believe that this is all Roddick does during rallies. Sure he isn't the most aggressive player in the world but he hits the ball with pace at times and usually with purpose (ie. he's aiming somewhere in the court to set up the next shot). Roddick cannot be considered a pusher. Pusher's, by definition, play at a level so low that one wouldn't be able to make a future's event with this style of play, much less the pro circuit.

Ripster
04-12-2009, 04:37 PM
Roddick plays largely the part of a pusher when he plays anyone not in the top 5. His preferred way of playing is by pushing the ball unless he plays someone that can easily hit winners .

Roddick beat Novak twice this year by playing a retrieving style.

grafrules
04-12-2009, 06:38 PM
Roddick beat Novak twice this year by playing a retrieving style.

Roddick has been competitive with Djokovic and Federer this year playing that way only since both of them are playing poorly for their standards and lacking confidence right now. When he plays any of the top 4, even top 5 if you include Davydenko, he will not do well playing that way unless they underperform. Otherwise he has to hit his forehand much more agressively and make things happen outside the serve more than he is now, and forget the crazy kamikozees to the net.

theagassiman
04-12-2009, 07:47 PM
By definition a pusher is a player whose goal is to hit the ball back over the net and into the court. That is all. You can't seriously believe that this is all Roddick does during rallies. Sure he isn't the most aggressive player in the world but he hits the ball with pace at times and usually with purpose (ie. he's aiming somewhere in the court to set up the next shot). Roddick cannot be considered a pusher. Pusher's, by definition, play at a level so low that one wouldn't be able to make a future's event with this style of play, much less the pro circuit.

That is an AMATUER PUSHER.
A PRO PUSHER is someone who, yes gets the ball back in play. But he hits his/her shots in a certain way to initiate the unforced errors.

They are not fast enough, or do not posses enough placement to be considered a retriever or a counterpuncher. Pro pusher's groundstrokes are also not good enough to dictate play, and their volleys can be decent, but they DO NOT GO TO THE NET ENOUGH to be considered an all-court player/s&volleyer.

Roddick is a PRO pusher (most of the time), because, he does not possess groundstrokes that dictate play, at least in the top 20 or so. His serve is his only shot which is not of a pusher's, but that does not change anything, because it can only be used at a certain time, not ALL THE TIME.

imalil2gangsta4u
04-12-2009, 09:09 PM
whenever i watch roddick play, i always think to myself about how he never really gets the ball past people besides on his serve. i think he needs to go for more but idk if ide say hes a pusher.

TennisNinja
04-12-2009, 09:59 PM
I kind of think his game has developed the way Hewitt's did. Where when they were first on tour they had some of the most aggressive and penetrating groundstrokes, but as time passed, they stopped being so impressive, and more of the norm. Thus, they then had to adjust their playing style.

nhat8121
04-12-2009, 10:41 PM
i thought counter puncher is from defense to offense...

in that case, I would classify roddick as a counter puncher.

helloworld
04-12-2009, 10:45 PM
i thought counter puncher is from defense to offense...

in that case, I would classify roddick as a counter puncher.

Actually, Roddick is not very good on that department. His defensive game is decent due to his strong will attitude to fight every point, but he can't come up with spectacular shot on defense as well as top guys like Nadal or even Federer. This is the reason why Federer always own him from the baseline. He is able to go from defense to offense MUCH better than Roddick.

helloworld
04-12-2009, 10:52 PM
Right.

This is why I said we're speaking in relative terms here. You could make the same argument for every player that could be considered a "pusher" in the top 50. A pusher in the professional tour is still a very attack-minded player, but there is something to be said about varying degrees.

A player like Simon usually does the same thing off the ground as Roddick, but we label him a pusher because he lacks the huge serve that sets Roddick apart. I'm arguing that Roddick, once the serve is over and done with, plays the role of a pusher in the rallies when he has a choice of style to play. Pushing off the ground is his comfort zone.
This guy is the only one who understands a relative term of a pusher here. A PUSHER in pros level can't be compared to 3.5 pusher you guys play after school. Pushers on professional level can still hit the sh*t out of the ball given a chance, but they will tend to just hit a loopy deep ball during normal rallies, and this is EXACTLY what Roddick does nowadays. So professionally speaking, he is actually a pusher.

helloworld
04-12-2009, 10:58 PM
Thanks coach:roll:

I'll take that as a compliment rather than a sarcasm. ;)

jamesblakefan#1
04-12-2009, 11:13 PM
Actually, Roddick is not very good on that department. His defensive game is decent due to his strong will attitude to fight every point, but he can't come up with spectacular shot on defense as well as top guys like Nadal or even Federer. This is the reason why Federer always own him from the baseline. He is able to go from defense to offense MUCH better than Roddick.

I think that was actually a good analysis, unlike some other people on here.

theagassiman
04-13-2009, 03:37 AM
This guy is the only one who understands a relative term of a pusher here. A PUSHER in pros level can't be compared to 3.5 pusher you guys play after school. Pushers on professional level can still hit the sh*t out of the ball given a chance, but they will tend to just hit a loopy deep ball during normal rallies, and this is EXACTLY what Roddick does nowadays. So professionally speaking, he is actually a pusher.

Exactly right.

adlis
04-13-2009, 04:49 AM
Exactly right.

What i think of andy roddick


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v644/neenx3/1052630375_b.jpg

kungfusmkim
04-13-2009, 04:55 AM
Please stop sharing crack or coke with Hingis. first of all, If you knew more about roddick you would not call him a pusher. If you dont know about roddick, i suggest you look at 2003 plays from him pronto. WHO ON EARTH CALLS SAMPRAS AN ALL COURT PLAYER. HIS OBVIOUSLY A S&V. thats all. And once again, Hingis's crack gone bad. REAL BAD.

kungfusmkim
04-13-2009, 04:58 AM
RODDICK: a ball bashing, Meat head. He has a powerful serve and a big forehand but doesn't have the brains to use them in the field today. Makes a ***** load of UE.

coloskier
04-13-2009, 05:09 AM
Please stop sharing crack or coke with Hingis. first of all, If you knew more about roddick you would not call him a pusher. If you dont know about roddick, i suggest you look at 2003 plays from him pronto. WHO ON EARTH CALLS SAMPRAS AN ALL COURT PLAYER. HIS OBVIOUSLY A S&V. thats all. And once again, Hingis's crack gone bad. REAL BAD.

I guess you weren't alive when Sampras played because he also had the most feared forehand in the game during his prime and his backhand was pretty good too.

kungfusmkim
04-13-2009, 05:12 AM
I guess you weren't alive when Sampras played because he also had the most feared forehand in the game during his prime and his backhand was pretty good too.

So did Edberg and Becker no? All S&V can only be a S&V with a well developed baseline game. The person is a Serve and Volleyer when their skills for serving and Volleying is more effective then their baseline game. Becker had a huge forehand, Edberg had an huge backhand. HOWEVER, their Serving and Volleying were much more effective in winning points then their basline game alone.

+ Edit:
Think about it, If i person is only able to Serve and Volley, what on earth are they going to do when they have to return a serve by a another Serve and Volleyer?

Forehand Forever
04-13-2009, 06:10 AM
RODDICK: a ball bashing, Meat head. He has a powerful serve and a big forehand but doesn't have the brains to use them in the field today. Makes a ***** load of UE.

Roddick doesn't make that many UE's anymore...

EtePras
04-13-2009, 06:42 AM
I guess you weren't alive when Sampras played because he also had the most feared forehand in the game during his prime and his backhand was pretty good too.

His forehand was above average at best and the backhand was one of the weakest shots of all time.

helloworld
04-13-2009, 08:26 AM
His forehand was above average at best and the backhand was one of the weakest shots of all time.

Worst post of all time.

helloworld
04-13-2009, 08:31 AM
Please stop sharing crack or coke with Hingis. first of all, If you knew more about roddick you would not call him a pusher. If you dont know about roddick, i suggest you look at 2003 plays from him pronto. WHO ON EARTH CALLS SAMPRAS AN ALL COURT PLAYER. HIS OBVIOUSLY A S&V. thats all. And once again, Hingis's crack gone bad. REAL BAD.

You might be right if we're talking about post-2000 Sampras. Sampras became pure S&V at the tail end of his career. Early on, he was basically a baseliner during his early career, then he became more of an all-courter during his prime. His serve has improved drastically, and his volley game has fully matured. In addition, his backhand was actually good during his prime days. Sampras in his prime is definitely one of the most complete player ever. He had the serve, volleys, agility, great forehand, decent backhand, and AWESOME SMASH.

clayman2000
04-13-2009, 08:35 AM
I am just speculating here, but maybe Roddick is an all court player. He can serve a fastball, changeup, up the line, body, across. On the ground, he can play defense, attack (decently). He can slice, move the ball around, and at the same time force UE's. He is actually have decent at the S&V when he charges of the 1st serve.

Looking from this perspective, Roddick has done and is capable (to a certain extent) of doing anything

helloworld
04-13-2009, 08:41 AM
I am just speculating here, but maybe Roddick is an all court player. He can serve a fastball, changeup, up the line, body, across. On the ground, he can play defense, attack (decently). He can slice, move the ball around, and at the same time force UE's. He is actually have decent at the S&V when he charges of the 1st serve.

Looking from this perspective, Roddick has done and is capable (to a certain extent) of doing anything
First, his approach shot is pathetic. Second, his volleys are decent for a good club volleyer. Third, he is obviously not the most agile player out there. Forth, his backhand is basically a pusher shot.
Roddick's serve may be a complete shot, but definitely not his entire game.

Tennis_Wiz
04-13-2009, 08:48 AM
I would have to say that he is NOT a pusher however he does dictate play most of the time...

helloworld
04-13-2009, 08:53 AM
I would have to say that he is NOT a pusher however he does dictate play most of the time...
Pre-2004 yes. Post-2004 not so much.

clayman2000
04-13-2009, 09:00 AM
First, his approach shot is pathetic. Second, his volleys are decent for a good club volleyer. Third, he is obviously not the most agile player out there. Forth, his backhand is basically a pusher shot.
Roddick's serve may be a complete shot, but definitely not his entire game.

Actually, he is actually a decent volleyer, his approach shots just suck. But for example against Federer in Miami, if he goes to net of the first serve, he will get free points. It worked several times in the 2nd and 3rd sets

His backhand is not pusher, he moves it around, and hits it pretty hard, albiet it is very flat. In fact, i think it is the most underestimated part of his game, becuase he hits it very solid and opponents try to, but usually fail attacking it.
If i was his opponent, i would attack the forhand instead

JeMar
04-13-2009, 11:20 AM
Please stop sharing crack or coke with Hingis. first of all, If you knew more about roddick you would not call him a pusher. If you dont know about roddick, i suggest you look at 2003 plays from him pronto. WHO ON EARTH CALLS SAMPRAS AN ALL COURT PLAYER. HIS OBVIOUSLY A S&V. thats all. And once again, Hingis's crack gone bad. REAL BAD.

Oh lord, ERASE THIS BEFORE ANYONE SEES IT!!!

deltox
04-13-2009, 11:31 AM
I am just speculating here, but maybe Roddick is an all court player. He can serve a fastball, changeup, up the line, body, across. On the ground, he can play defense, attack (decently). He can slice, move the ball around, and at the same time force UE's. He is actually have decent at the S&V when he charges of the 1st serve.

Looking from this perspective, Roddick has done and is capable (to a certain extent) of doing anything

one thing making him for sure not all court... he cant volley well enough.

theagassiman
04-13-2009, 02:58 PM
First, his approach shot is pathetic. Second, his volleys are decent for a good club volleyer. Third, he is obviously not the most agile player out there. Forth, his backhand is basically a pusher shot.
Roddick's serve may be a complete shot, but definitely not his entire game.

Roddick's volleys are decent for a club player?! :shock:

I'm sorry helloworld, there are a lot of bad posts I've seen on this thread, but yours is the worst.

theagassiman
04-13-2009, 03:02 PM
Actually, he is actually a decent volleyer, his approach shots just suck. But for example against Federer in Miami, if he goes to net of the first serve, he will get free points. It worked several times in the 2nd and 3rd sets

His backhand is not pusher, he moves it around, and hits it pretty hard, albiet it is very flat. In fact, i think it is the most underestimated part of his game, becuase he hits it very solid and opponents try to, but usually fail attacking it.
If i was his opponent, i would attack the forhand instead

I agree.
Federer attacked his forehand during the 2007 AO semi-final.
Well Federer attacked everything actually :)

But Roddick is a pusher, and unfortunately pushing doesn't quite work.
I've only seen Roddick try to change tactics ONCE against Federer, and that was at the 2004 Wimbledon Final, where he took the 1st set. (actually I think he would have taken the match had there not been a rain delay).

helloworld
04-13-2009, 03:07 PM
Roddick's volleys are decent for a club player?! :shock:

I'm sorry helloworld, there are a lot of bad posts I've seen on this thread, but yours is the worst.

In this case, you have no idea how good a club player can be. Perhaps you should look outside the pond and meet some 'club player' who can easily hit with top pros.

FD3S
04-13-2009, 03:26 PM
In this case, you have no idea how good a club player can be. Perhaps you should look outside the pond and meet some 'club player' who can easily hit with top pros.

Roddick, crappy approaches and all, would look like Sampras at net if it was a club player against him, no matter how good they stack up against their peers.

This is, of course, assuming that the club player isn't a retired pro.

helloworld
04-13-2009, 03:29 PM
Roddick, crappy approaches and all, would look like Sampras at net if it was a club player against him, no matter how good they stack up against their peers.

This is, of course, assuming that the club player isn't a retired pro.
Which would contradict your own post as some club players are in fact retired pros...

vbranis
04-13-2009, 04:56 PM
To put it simply, Roddick is a pusher who happens to have a terrific serve to get him out of trouble and set up points. His ground game is equivalent to that of guys ranked around 100-150. He relies on opponent errors to sneak some breaks, and then hold on to his serve. He also has an excellent TB record because of this.

I mean, just go and look at some of the Challenger tournaments or ATP qualies. MOST of those guys can really crack HUGE forehands and/or backhands compared to Roddick's spinny, wristy shots. He just can't seem to be able to flatten out shots like he used to, so he just keeps the ball in play with lots of margin.

I was at the IW match between him and Ferrer (the classic counterpuncher), and Ferrer ended up with more winners AND unforced errors than Roddick. Ferrer was the one dictating play, Roddick was just playing safe, and using his serve as the only weapon. What does that make Roddick?

JeMar
04-13-2009, 04:58 PM
His volleys are pretty average for even a current professional player, it's his approach shot that's the problem.

T1000
04-13-2009, 05:01 PM
yea, any one with a 140 mph serve is a pusher :roll:

clayman2000
04-13-2009, 06:16 PM
To put it simply, Roddick is a pusher who happens to have a terrific serve to get him out of trouble and set up points. His ground game is equivalent to that of guys ranked around 100-150. He relies on opponent errors to sneak some breaks, and then hold on to his serve. He also has an excellent TB record because of this.

I mean, just go and look at some of the Challenger tournaments or ATP qualies. MOST of those guys can really crack HUGE forehands and/or backhands compared to Roddick's spinny, wristy shots. He just can't seem to be able to flatten out shots like he used to, so he just keeps the ball in play with lots of margin.

I was at the IW match between him and Ferrer (the classic counterpuncher), and Ferrer ended up with more winners AND unforced errors than Roddick. Ferrer was the one dictating play, Roddick was just playing safe, and using his serve as the only weapon. What does that make Roddick?

That makes roddick a former USO champ, former world no 1, 4 time slam finalist, 4 masters shields, top 10 for 7 years in a row.

ferrer is: 1 time slam semifinalist, top ten for 1 year

If roddick was a pusher, how would he be able to break Djokovic 4 times, Nadal twice, and Federer too. Also he also has one of the highest 2nd serve % points won in the ATP. So clealry he does not have challenger strokes. His shots may not be as hard, but he can take power and aim shots with decent pace

veroniquem
04-13-2009, 06:19 PM
Roddick is not a pusher at all but he's a mediocre volleyer for a top player.

vbranis
04-13-2009, 08:14 PM
That makes roddick a former USO champ, former world no 1, 4 time slam finalist, 4 masters shields, top 10 for 7 years in a row.

ferrer is: 1 time slam semifinalist, top ten for 1 year

If roddick was a pusher, how would he be able to break Djokovic 4 times, Nadal twice, and Federer too. Also he also has one of the highest 2nd serve % points won in the ATP. So clealry he does not have challenger strokes. His shots may not be as hard, but he can take power and aim shots with decent pace

I did not say that being a pusher means he's bad. He's gotten very good at this game and manages to force even the top players into mistakes. Maybe I exaggerated a bit saying that his ground game is at the #100 level; let me correct myself: it's not, it's just that it's VERY conservative and SAFE (like any pusher), and guys ranked 100 consistently hit the ball harder than him. Look at the stats of 90% of his matches, and you will see that he has both fewer winners AND unforced errors than his opponent. That to me, coupled with his safe, spinny strokes, defines a pusher. I'm not saying he's a bad player by any means.

Toxicmilk
04-13-2009, 09:23 PM
Which would contradict your own post as some club players are in fact retired pros...

You sure as heck never quit with this, do you?

pow
04-13-2009, 09:33 PM
You cannot call someone a pusher when he hits every stroke in the book harder and better than you do. :)

coloskier
04-14-2009, 11:29 AM
yea, any one with a 140 mph serve is a pusher :roll:

"Pushing" has absolutely nothing to do with the serve. it has to do with groundstrokes only.

LPShanet
04-14-2009, 11:35 AM
We all know the 6 player types:
1. Retriever (Gets everything back)
2. Counterpuncher (Smooth transition from offense to defence)
3. Agressive Baseliner (Big groundstroke(s) to dictate play)
4. Pusher/Junkballer (Not pretty strokes, relies on opponent's unforced errors)
5. All-Court Player (Either prefers the net, e.g: sampras
or the baseline, e.g: federer)
6. Serve and volleyer

But where does Roddick fit into?

Most experts say he is an agressive baseliner, and whilst that might have been true in 2003, his groundstrokes are becoming more and more average these days, certainly not strokes that he can dictate with.

Forget about all-court player and serve and volleyer, as he only goes to the net to shake hands or to get passed.

So what's left is retriever, counterpuncher and pusher.

Although Roddick is VERY fast, I don't think he retrieves that well, as his placement is well.. terrible.
The same thing can be said about counterpunching, as his shots like consistently good placement.

So we're left with... The Pusher!
Roddick a professional tennis player? A pusher?
Yet as ridiculous as this this sounds, the more it begins to make sense, at least to me.

You see, Roddick hasn't got good placement, if you think of him as an agressive baseliner at least.
However, if you notice what he does, when Roddick wins against a decent opponent, let's say Djokovic, it is usually because Djokovic is making a lot of errors.

So either everyone plays like crap against Roddick to lose (except for Federer, Nadal, Murray and sometimes Djokovic), or Roddick HITS TO THE PLACES where players make the errors.
And I think it is the latter, because everyone assumes Roddick hits rubbish approach approach shots 'cos he can't think of any other alternative, but this may because he WANTS his opponent to become arrogant and MAKE THE ERRORS, which is how he wins.

Anyway enough ranting for now.
What do you guys think?

I don't disagree with your point about Roddick, but just curious that your initial info hasn't really been questioned. You said that "We all know..." the player types, but where did you get the info that those are the 6 official types? How do we all know (and presumably agree) that those are the only categories? What about "chip and charge", "touch artist", etc.? Just curious, as I've never seen that specific list before. Also, I have a hard time understanding the distinction you're positing between a retriever and a pusher. They're basically variations on the same thing.

clayman2000
04-14-2009, 01:15 PM
I did not say that being a pusher means he's bad. He's gotten very good at this game and manages to force even the top players into mistakes. Maybe I exaggerated a bit saying that his ground game is at the #100 level; let me correct myself: it's not, it's just that it's VERY conservative and SAFE (like any pusher), and guys ranked 100 consistently hit the ball harder than him. Look at the stats of 90% of his matches, and you will see that he has both fewer winners AND unforced errors than his opponent. That to me, coupled with his safe, spinny strokes, defines a pusher. I'm not saying he's a bad player by any means.

I bet that you could find a lot of journeyman who can hit as hard at Tsonga. What you fail to realize is that what separates a journeyman from a star player is the accuracy, and consistency. Roddicks ground game is definitely in the top 20, becuase he can take pace and get the ball back. If you dont believe me, look at Robert Kendrick. Hits the ball harder than 99% of tennis players in the whole world, yet id say Roddicks ground game is way better than his. Once again, people confuse a good ground game with pace.

DejZ
04-14-2009, 01:25 PM
He is playing with much more defense in his game this year...

devila
04-14-2009, 01:52 PM
He's a fat, hefty brontosaurus with weak bad moonballing hands (arms move like their shorter arms), and huge legs. That's his genes dictating his vertical-stiff body positions, especially at net. It's not his lack of smarts.
His stomach core muscles aren't strong enough to keep him steady and low to the ground, so that he could stretch his arms to hit the flat balls on lines.
He usually topspins everything on the baseline, and loses his foot balance because of unforced errors. He worships the ground Federer walks on; we all know he's an Agassi copycat. And, please don't compare Roddick to Brad Gilbert, the lucky loser. Gilbert's the one who with a straight face, muttered "gain weight, you'll serve harder. You can never be better than Federer."
Karlovic, is bashing flat balls off court...how in the world are you putting him in Roddick's league? :o

Ripster
04-14-2009, 02:57 PM
That is an AMATUER PUSHER.
A PRO PUSHER is someone who, yes gets the ball back in play. But he hits his/her shots in a certain way to initiate the unforced errors.

They are not fast enough, or do not posses enough placement to be considered a retriever or a counterpuncher. Pro pusher's groundstrokes are also not good enough to dictate play, and their volleys can be decent, but they DO NOT GO TO THE NET ENOUGH to be considered an all-court player/s&volleyer.

Roddick is a PRO pusher (most of the time), because, he does not possess groundstrokes that dictate play, at least in the top 20 or so. His serve is his only shot which is not of a pusher's, but that does not change anything, because it can only be used at a certain time, not ALL THE TIME.

So you are saying that Roddick can't place the ball in the court? So when his opponents hit to him he just swings and prays that it will go somewhere in between the lines? No way man, Roddick can PLACE and AIM his shots. Guess what? So can all of the players in the top 100. And so can all of the players in the top 1000.

Roddick can dictate play. He possesses a forehand that can dictate play. How about watching Dubai 2008? Watch it and then tell me if Roddick dictated play at all. Heck, watch any of his matches from 2002-2006.

Like I said, Pro pushers do not exist.

theagassiman
04-14-2009, 04:23 PM
So you are saying that Roddick can't place the ball in the court? So when his opponents hit to him he just swings and prays that it will go somewhere in between the lines? No way man, Roddick can PLACE and AIM his shots. Guess what? So can all of the players in the top 100. And so can all of the players in the top 1000.

Roddick can dictate play. He possesses a forehand that can dictate play. How about watching Dubai 2008? Watch it and then tell me if Roddick dictated play at all. Heck, watch any of his matches from 2002-2006.

Like I said, Pro pushers do not exist.

What about Brad Gilbert?
And Gilles Simon?

Don't tell me they both had/have huge forehands/backhands which could dictate play, because everyone knows that ain't true.

As for Roddick, everyone knows as well as having a phenomenal serve, he had a huge forehand, but for whatever reason, has decided to change tactics and use more topspin for that forehand, not making it as effective as it used to be.

If you have been watching him you will have noticed that, and you will have also noticed that Roddick can no longer dictate play amongst the top 20, and has to rely on the subtle but effective art of 'pushing' to win the match.

I'm sorry, but that's just the way things are.

Ripster
04-14-2009, 06:26 PM
What about Brad Gilbert?
And Gilles Simon?

Don't tell me they both had/have huge forehands/backhands which could dictate play, because everyone knows that ain't true.

As for Roddick, everyone knows as well as having a phenomenal serve, he had a huge forehand, but for whatever reason, has decided to change tactics and use more topspin for that forehand, not making it as effective as it used to be.

If you have been watching him you will have noticed that, and you will have also noticed that Roddick can no longer dictate play amongst the top 20, and has to rely on the subtle but effective art of 'pushing' to win the match.

I'm sorry, but that's just the way things are.

We seem to have different definitions on what exactly pushing is. I get what you're saying about those guys: Roddick, Simon, etc. They play defensive tennis, but I'd still call it retrieving or even counterpunching...but not pushing.

Anyway, I'll use the annoying cliche "let's agree to disagree"

I really do not want to defend Roddick anymore either - I don't like him. So let's leave it at that.

JayChu
04-14-2009, 06:32 PM
LOL. Some of these posts are mad jokes here. You guys should come up with new categories to mix in hybrid types. Maybe Roddick is a hybrid aggressive baseliner that is also somewhat of a pusher, or he is a hybrid of something else.

Have you guys ever thought of that?

theagassiman
04-14-2009, 06:54 PM
We seem to have different definitions on what exactly pushing is. I get what you're saying about those guys: Roddick, Simon, etc. They play defensive tennis, but I'd still call it retrieving or even counterpunching...but not pushing.

Anyway, I'll use the annoying cliche "let's agree to disagree"

I really do not want to defend Roddick anymore either - I don't like him. So let's leave it at that.

Retrieving and counter-punching is what most people would call people like Simon, Roddick, Gilbert, e.t.c...

But the thing is they're not and here's why:

1. To be a retriever you have to be exceptionally fast, but not just exceptionally fast, but CONSISTENTLY fast, that means speed is the main part of your game (players such as Michael Chang). Gilbert, Roddick and Simon (to a lesser extent) don't/didn't rely on speed as their main part of their game.

2. To be a counter-puncher, you have to be exceptionally good at turning from defense into offense, like, if a counter-puncher is on the run, they will ATTACK that shot and try and go for a winner/stay in the point. To avoid controversy, I will just give Lleyton Hewitt as a classic example of a counterpuncher.

Endgame is, Roddick, Gilbert and Simon do not do the above consistently enough or don't have the shots to do the above consistently.

But they all have one thing in common:
All three rely on keeping the ball in play and keeping unforced errors down to a minimum to win. That is the definition of a pusher.

PaulC
04-15-2009, 08:36 PM
A good Tour Pro can be "pushers" and "aggressors" in different occasions, sometimes even in the same match.

-- Though Federer ALWAYS failed to "Push" while he should...

see what Murray, Roddick, and Del Potro did to Nadal? And look what they did when they counter-attack? (you call that "push" too?)

(Hmm... Isn't Nadal the ultimate Pusher by that definition too? :)

Don't be pusher-phobic and narrow-minded, any tour pro can be both so called pusher and aggresser at the same time.

And for Christ sake... Roddick's so called "pushed" forehand topspin is still strong enough to be an "agressive" shot for you and me or even any Open level 6.0 player to return it anyway. :-)

theagassiman
04-15-2009, 09:27 PM
A good Tour Pro can be "pushers" and "aggressors" in different occasions, sometimes even in the same match.

-- Though Federer ALWAYS failed to "Push" while he should...

see what Murray, Roddick, and Del Potro did to Nadal? And look what they did when they counter-attack? (you call that "push" too?)

(Hmm... Isn't Nadal the ultimate Pusher by that definition too? :)

Don't be pusher-phobic and narrow-minded, any tour pro can be both so called pusher and aggresser at the same time.

And for Christ sake... Roddick's so called "pushed" forehand topspin is still strong enough to be an "agressive" shot for you and me or even any Open level 6.0 player to return it anyway. :-)

PRO Pusher.
NOT AMATEUR Pusher

lordmanji
04-15-2009, 09:48 PM
hey do you guys think its the more extreme double bend in roddick's elbow that's caused his forehand to lack power?

PaulC
04-16-2009, 10:52 PM
PRO Pusher.
NOT AMATEUR Pusher

Don't be so so hung up on a narrow categorization of players, I don't think it will help you understand, appreciate and learn from the pro's games better, particularly from those who can switch gears like Murray, Roddick or Del Potro lately ...

Lets say Roddick is a PRO-PUSHER by the narrower definition, but then he was also a PRO-AGRESSOR in those VERY SAME GAMES 1/3 of the time when he attempted counter-attacts, and he was even also a PRO Serve & Volleyer (though maybe just a **wannabe**) 1/3 of the time at those same games too, so now what??

Did he push the entire game? I didn't see that, 1/3 of the time at most if you actually take counts

(your definition of a " PRO's push" shot is definitely not the same as mine or other folks here, -- whether those "attacks" attempts were "aggressive" enough to be "non-PRO's push" is the key of this debate -- and it's so subjective)

The only real PURE pro pusher in tennis history who "pushed" over 80% of the time maybe just B. Gilbert, which is as undisputable as a knuckleballer in baseball -- if you throw knuckleball 3/4 of the game then you're qualify as one.

(I don't think the definition of knuckleball is as disputable as what it means by a PRO's "push" shot in tennis :)

theagassiman
04-16-2009, 11:41 PM
Don't be so so hung up on a narrow categorization of players, I don't think it will help you understand, appreciate and learn from the pro's games better, particularly from those who can switch gears like Murray, Roddick or Del Potro lately ...

Lets say Roddick is a PRO-PUSHER by the narrower definition, but then he was also a PRO-AGRESSOR in those VERY SAME GAMES 1/3 of the time when he attempted counter-attacts, and he was even also a PRO Serve & Volleyer (though maybe just a **wannabe**) 1/3 of the time at those same games too, so now what??

Did he push the entire game? I didn't see that, 1/3 of the time at most if you actually take counts

(your definition of a " PRO's push" shot is definitely not the same as mine or other folks here, -- whether those "attacks" attempts were "aggressive" enough to be "non-PRO's push" is the key of this debate -- and it's so subjective)

The only real PURE pro pusher in tennis history who "pushed" over 80% of the time maybe just B. Gilbert, which is as undisputable as a knuckleballer in baseball -- if you throw knuckleball 3/4 of the game then you're qualify as one.

(I don't think the definition of knuckleball is as disputable as what it means by a PRO's "push" shot in tennis :)

Was Borg an all-court player just because at the French Open, he was a baseliner, but at Wimbledon, he was a serve & volleyer?

We're talking about how players play in about 60-80% of their matches, and just because Roddick decided to serve and volley sometimes at one match, that suddenly makes him an all-court player.

'Pusher' is by no means a derogatory term, as you and a lot of other posters seem to think. It is the purest form of making your opponents make the errors to win the match, and if you're described as a pusher, you should be proud to be one.

PaulC
04-17-2009, 10:42 AM
Was Borg an all-court player just because at the French Open, he was a baseliner, but at Wimbledon, he was a serve & volleyer?

We're talking about how players play in about 60-80% of their matches, and just because Roddick decided to serve and volley sometimes at one match, that suddenly makes him an all-court player.

'Pusher' is by no means a derogatory term, as you and a lot of other posters seem to think. It is the purest form of making your opponents make the errors to win the match, and if you're described as a pusher, you should be proud to be one.

Actually I myself don't think "Push" is a deogatory term either... just that I guess we have to agree that we disgree on the definition of what's a "Push" shot at the Pro level (a philosophical question, isn't it? :)

-- If you define anything that a pro player don't hit with full force with the intent to score directly as "Push", then yeah, a lot of Pros are in deed "Pusher" as they did it 60-80% of the time. I would then even categorize all Topspinners as "Pushers" such as Nadal or Borg.

Since for topspin shots, no matter how "aggressive" they may appear, you're still essentially waiting for your opponent's error from returning them or get the resulting easy put-away or attack chances (yet another philosophical topic isn't it? :)

Whereas MY definition of "Push" shots are defined as shots that DON'T have a clear intention of either:

1. Scoring directly OR
2. Induce errors or attack chances (like a deep landing topspin shot provides)

By these definitions, Roddick's "Push" shots in question don't qualify and hence I won't list him as a "Pusher" in my book, whereas, I will call Brad Gilbert a pure pusher because of that -- seriously, what are those knuckleball-like shots? :)

~PaulC the tennis-philosopher (?!)

adlis
04-17-2009, 01:59 PM
Actually I myself don't think "Push" is a deogatory term either... just that I guess we have to agree that we disgree on the definition of what's a "Push" shot at the Pro level (a philosophical question, isn't it? :)

-- If you define anything that a pro player don't hit with full force with the intent to score directly as "Push", then yeah, a lot of Pros are in deed "Pusher" as they did it 60-80% of the time. I would then even categorize all Topspinners as "Pushers" such as Nadal or Borg.

Since for topspin shots, no matter how "aggressive" they may appear, you're still essentially waiting for your opponent's error from returning them or get the resulting easy put-away or attack chances (yet another philosophical topic isn't it? :)

Whereas MY definition of "Push" shots are defined as shots that DON'T have a clear intention of either:

1. Scoring directly OR
2. Induce errors or attack chances (like a deep landing topspin shot provides)

By these definitions, Roddick's "Push" shots in question don't qualify and hence I won't list him as a "Pusher" in my book, whereas, I will call Brad Gilbert a pure pusher because of that -- seriously, what are those knuckleball-like shots? :)

~PaulC the tennis-philosopher (?!)

i totally disagree with that statement

PaulC
04-17-2009, 03:33 PM
i totally disagree with that statement

Well then, feel free to offer your definitions then, don't waste board space to post stuffs like I agree or I disagree.

helloworld
04-17-2009, 04:49 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYds3V-fAXk Pushers at their best. :D